BASIC NOTES

 28 June 2001 

Britain’s Elections:  Time for Change?

By Mark Bromley and Christina Torsein

On 7 June 2001 Prime Minister Tony Blair was re-elected in a landslide victory with a second majority government.  It was the first time in over 100 years that Britain’s Labour party won re-election for a second term.  However, Labour’s achievement contrasts sharply with a disappointing 59% voter turnout, the country’s lowest since World War I.

After four years in power with many areas of policy not fully developed, the second Blair government will be under added pressure to deliver on every aspect of government policy, whether it is defence, foreign policy or public service reform.  What issues does a second Labour government face, especially in light of trans-Atlantic relations?

Cabinet Shifts Give Mixed Signals
The new cabinet has seen a number of key changes highlighting possible international security priorities for the second Blair administration.  Former Home Secretary Jack Straw is the new Foreign Minister, replacing Robin Cook.  Cook’s departure from the Foreign Office to become President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons is seen as a demotion.  Cook was regarded as being too pro-Europe, while Straw is perceived as being more Euro-sceptic.  But this perceived Euro-scepticism may make Straw a more effective salesperson as Blair seeks to convince the general public of the wisdom of UK entry into the single currency.  Blair is likely  to hold a referendum on this issue during his second term.

Stephen Byers moves from the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) to the mega-ministry of Transport, Local Government and the Regions.  Byers was seen as progressive, bringing ethical considerations into DTI’s export licensing input.  The civil rights background of new DTI head Patricia Hewitt is countered by a recent political shift to the right, leaving her an “unknown quantity” in the second Blair government; her appointment leaves the status of emerging revisions of UK arms export policies unclear.  Geoff Hoon remains as Secretary of State for Defence, primarily dealing with defence spending and weapons system upgrades over the next few years.

As the newly-appointed Minister for Europe, Peter Hain is largely responsible for Britain’s relations with Europe.  He is making a second appearance in a foreign policy role under Blair.  During the previous government, Hain held a Foreign Office post, but it was rumoured that Blair moved him to DTI due to concerns over Hain’s vocal opposition to US missile defence plans.  Hain’s role in this new government will be to bring Britain’s policy concerns more in line with Europe’s and, like Straw, his Euro-scepticism will boost efforts to move Britain toward the single currency.  Blair has said he considers this the most important position outside of the cabinet.

Blair, Labour Face Off Over National Missile Defence
The past few months have seen a number of significant changes in the international arena, presenting con-siderable challenges to the second Blair government.  Particularly hard to swallow has been Washington’s perceived abandonment of the Biological Weapons Convention, an agreement in which the Foreign Office has invested great effort. In addition, the Bush administration’s dismissal of both the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) and Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) are hard to countenance from a government that professes to support the strengthening of international treaties.

Most notably, President George W. Bush’s plans for a National Missile Defence (NMD) project are the subject of continued debate.  The Bush administration’s determination to press ahead with the NMD system while simultaneously weakening US commitment to multilateral arms control is a source of intense private, if not public, disquiet within the UK government.  The British government has not taken a position on Bush’s plans for a NMD system, stating only that it understands US concerns and welcomes the ongoing process of consultation that the US is undertaking.  This issue is of particular importance as military bases in the United Kingdom will need to be upgraded for NMD to work.  At present, the UK government is sticking to the line that, without a formal request to use the UK sites in an NMD system, it is unable to say what its response would be.

In the coming months, Blair faces growing questions surrounding his position on Bush’s NMD plans.  Increasingly, the Prime Minister will have to deal with opposing views from his backbenchers and traditional Labour supporters like the trade unions.  Behind the scenes, the rank and file of the Labour Party membership are becoming increasingly vocal in their opposition to NMD and particularly the use of UK bases.

In May, Labour backbencher Malcolm Savidge tabled an Early Day Motion which received 181 signatures by a large number of Labour MPs.  He is now re-tabling his Early Day Motion, and is likely to gain over 200 signatures.  While this does not affect government policy in any way, it would represent deep unease amongst Labour backbenchers.  British trade union leaders on 14 June noted with alarm President Bush’s plans for an anti-ballistic missile system.  They stated in a letter to the editor in The Guardian,  “We therefore consider it wholly inappropriate for our government to support this initiative and strongly urge it not to do so”.  If Bush does not gain some level of international support for NMD, it will be extremely difficult for Blair to persuade the Labour Party of the validity of supporting it.

The annual Labour Party conference scheduled for the autumn will undoubtedly be one venue for this debate to continue.  In the meantime, the Prime Minister has to contend with growing opposition within the ranks and increased scrutiny and questioning from the public.

Euro Defence Likely to be a Prominent Issue
Among the contentious subjects to be discussed during Bush’s expected visit to Britain in July are Washington’s NMD plans, and Blair will likely update Bush on the EU plans for a Rapid Reaction Force (RRF).  US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has expressed concern that the force could destabilise NATO, whereas US Secretary of State Colin Powell has been more optimistic about the RRF plans.  In the past few weeks, a number of senior UK and French military officials spoke out against the proposed RRF’s possible weaknesses.  In a letter to the Daily Telegraph, the officials stated that while close co-operation between military forces should take place, “common cause does not mean that we should dilute our forces in a common army, navy or air force.  As former Servicemen, we wish to voice our concerns at the manner in which the ability of our nations to protect our vital interests is being whittled away”.

On 13 June at an informal NATO summit in Brussels, European leaders came under renewed pressure to beef up their defense capabilities.  NATO Secretary General Lord Robertson used the occasion to stress that decisions are needed soon on remedying important military gaps if the European Union is to have a strong defence capability, and if NATO is to meet its own targets for improved capabilities.

NATO officials may hold a meeting in the autumn linked to a planned EU defence capabilities conference intended to address shortfalls affecting development of a rapid reaction force.  Such an effort would show NATO and the EU are not competing for assets – as critics of the EU initiative allege – but are trying to solve the same problem.  Blair has indicated that he plans to boost Britain’s defence spending, procurement, and weapons system upgrades during his second term, and Defence Secretary Hoon increasingly faces decisions on reconciling UK budgetary considerations with US and NATO compatibility.

For further information please contact:
Mark Bromley at mbromley@basicint.org or 
Christina Torsein at ctorsein@basicint.org.
.

Back to BASIC Publications